We are told two things by Christians. 1) That we live in a universe fine-tuned for us and 2) we are all sinners.

The irony of saying that we are in a perfect universe but that it can't allow for that one variable is beyond them, I guess.

Anyway, sin is the glue that holds christianity together. It is the common denominator that makes for obedient denominations. It is the fear factor that is used to control and uninform the masses. It is the hole card. It is the cat's pajamas. And Christians love it. They wouldn't have it any other way. Christianity without sin would just be no fun at all.

When you can have one thing, sin, that can both hold your group together and justify denouncing others, you don't even have to run around inventing a second concept. Its a one size fits all idea that can be conveniently corrupted as necessary, and also be defined as something personally humbling, if that is all you need. It excuses frightening kids and works really good as a hammer to hold over anyone else who dares cross your path.

In other words, technically speaking, it has been made to be more universal than the universe itself.

Christianity wouldn't be able to exist as invented without sin. It had to be introduced early in the story, after implying that perfection would have been possible if only our lady friend hadn't acted so impulsively. Perfection was around just long enough to be alluded to. The lack of details was purposeful. Since it is a bit too hard to go into perfection in any detail. It can't exist. And the fathers of the church had to allow for that. The bad had to be kept in the forefront, for all humans and all situations. There is no reality that can't be defined as sinful by someone. Had any more detail been provided about Eden, people would have seen that it wasn't so great either. Humans can only hint at perfection. The church fathers played that one to the hilt.

The job of sin was (and is) to justify the religion. Viable alternatives would ruin the whole thing.

We can look at the Christian reality as a sandwich. In the middle is us, sinners extraordinaire. One slice of bread is the alleged perfect state we all abandoned when grandma Eve erred so grievously, and the other slide is the return of JC. To keep people from fretting too much, this sandwich of has a slathering of heaven on it, just to keep the infinitely long waiting period between the two pieces of bread tolerable. That allows for all variables, as defined by the church. Which are 1) a long time ago and 2) the future. Or the prospects of heaven/hell, if one should be so unlucky as to die before the Jesus character reappears in their story.

So the myth we atheists are fighting when we take on Christians is not their god. It is their excuse. And that excuse is sin. We've been dong it wrong. It's time to go after the disease, not the symptom. The naïve notion of sin needs to disappear first. The normal range of human behaviors has to be redefined as normal, not as a personal affront to their god. IF we can succeed in that, the church will have no justification for existing.

If you want to take on 90% of the theists with this approach you will have to approach what they individually see as right and wrong. You will have to almost attempt to change their mind about what is morally wrong. For example good luck convincing someone that a single unmarried woman sleeping around isn’t an assault on their god. I would imagine that even without belief in their god they would still see that act as immoral. Also I think you are opening yourself up to sound like the arrogant atheist. Sin is what allows the Christian to be humble. After all one can never be free of sin like god so you need god to help steer you down a path of righteousness! A mere puny human can't be good on their own we aren’t designed that way... Wow that was a good one...And lastly most Christians are not afraid of sin because Jesus forgives all their sins. And they probably don’t even know what sin is anyway. What are you going to use science to explain things to them? That always works well.

This was written in a moment of exasperation. I'm not so naïve as to think I or anyone else can make any great progress based upon one quickly written essay. But if I can interject a little doubt here and there about the basic concept, my job will be done.

Theists, you've been had. You've been generically attacked, personally, and then your attacker has offered you a free get-out-of-ail card, and you are accepting it gratefully. Please try to come to grips with that fact. Your attacker should be a little less appreciated.

What are you going to use science to explain things to them? That always works well.

We've seen the results of using science to explain things to theists. skepdude is a perfect recent example - he didn't even remotely understand the science he was trying to argue against, but that certainly didn't stop him from doing so.

From personal experience: I haven't taken a formal science class in almost 30 years, until this fall. I took two of them - biology and botany - and used them both to help me makes sense of each other. It's not that what I learned in science is no longer valid, it's that so much more has been figured out since I last had a formal setting in which to pursue it what I knew was barely adequate to START the classes - I worked my rear end off catching up. Science continues to move forward building on what is already known. With so many different areas of scientific inquiry all making further progress it's virtually impossible for a layman to keep up with it. We each might pay attention to the things we are personally interested in, but your ordinary theist doesn't seem to come equipped with much curiosity about science, but they all seem to have a brick wall of defensiveness to hide behind while they stuff their fingers in their ears and shout "goddidit!!!!"

It would be really really nice if we could use science to show them the truth of the world we live in, and our place in the universe - but they generally don't know enough about it for that method to be effective on it's own.

« Last Edit: December 17, 2013, 12:54:26 PM by Jag »

Logged

"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

Sin is also a bludgeon that Christians use against non-believers -- "We're saved and you're not, neener neener neener!"

If we just start laughing at the absurdity of the concept of sin, instead of trying to defend ourselves via our behaviour (which is "works," and inferior to faith in their eyes anyway), their brickbat becomes a nerf bat.

If you remember the story of The Emperor's New Clothes, only people who were in competenet in their position were not be able to see it.

Sin is the "incompetence" aspect to draw an analogy.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Sin is also a bludgeon that Christians use against non-believers -- "We're saved and you're not, neener neener neener!"

Not even remotely true. It's a very sad thing when a person is not saved. Nothing to gloat about whatsoever.

This isn't a game. This is serious. Souls are at stake.

Plus if you don't believe in sin, one might be inclined to go out and kill somebody.

Normally I would ignore you Skep, but since this is my thread, I feel a bit more inclined to go ahead and berate. Even though you weren't responding to what I said, but to Astreja.

A) I'm not saying there isn't right and wrong. I'm saying that labeling it "sin" and generalizing that all are "sinners" puts an unnecessary and wrongheaded onus on us all that is completely unnecessary. But labeling everyone as a sinner was the only way to get enough recruits for this silly religious game of yours. Putting everyone on auto-wrong was a requirement for then offering a way out of hell.

B) So, explain to me why, as an atheist since 1962, why I haven't been the least bit inclined to go out and kill someone. Nor have I bothered.

I know what the rights and wrongs are in my society, and I generally respect them. (Make huge amounts of money off of the back of the poor, not so much. But the rest are mostly okay). I only need to know that what I do is not harming others. I have no argument with the golden rule. But saddling everyone from birth with the notion that they are the lowest form of life available because they do bad things with every breath is no way to raise a child or populate a society.

It's a very sad thing when a person is not saved. Nothing to gloat about whatsoever.

Then shouldn't you be on your knees in your prayer closet, Skeptic, with tears running down your face? Surely there's at least one person on Earth whose eternal fate is sealed beyond redemption. Why aren't you mourning them properly?

Quote

This isn't a game. This is serious. Souls are at stake.

First you have to prove to our satisfaction that "souls" actually exist. Then you can talk about them being in danger.

Quote

Plus if you don't believe in sin, one might be inclined to go out and kill somebody.

Sin is not bad behaviour -- Sin is a mythological embellishment to bad behaviour whereby an omnipotent god gets all butt-hurt when someone thinks the wrong thing, cuts their hair wrong, eats butterfly shrimp or otherwise breaks one of its rules.

Besides, the jails are full of believers who still think they're going to heaven because they said the magic words and are forgiven. Some of them even committed a crime because they thought they were doing the will of their imaginary friend.

The laws of civil society are usually quite sufficient to give pause to a nonbeliever who might be tempted to do something unpleasant to someone else -- But it takes a very, very special kind of theodementia to create the phenomenon of people doing evil even as they believe that paradise awaits them.

I also try to lock the sin to the consequence with this bit about hell.

----------------

Judgment and punishment go hand in hand.

Our human laws have a form of punishment where the penalty is graduated to fit the crime. An eye for an eye type of justice.

God‘s punishment seems to surpass this standard with hell. Hell used here is the eternal fire and torture type of hell and I am not particularly interested in the myriad of other definitions and theories that some use to supplant this traditional view.

To ascertain if hell would be a moral construct or not, all you need do is answer these simple question for yourself.

1. Is it good justice for a soul to be able to sin for only 120 years and then have to suffer torture for 12000000000000000000000000 + years?

2. Is it good justice for small or mediocre sinners to have to bear the same sentence as Hitler, Stalin and other genocidal maniacs?This might actually include God if you see Noah’s flood as God using genocide and not justice against man. Pardon the digression.

Punishment is usually only given to change attitude or actions and cause the sinner to repent.

3. Is it good justice to continue to torture a soul in hell if no change in attitude or actions are to result?

4. If you answered yes to these questions, then would killing the soul not be a better form of justice than to torture it for no possible good result or purpose?

Is hell a moral construct or not?

Please explain your reasons and know that ---just because you think God created it ---does not explain your moral judgment. It is your view I seek and not God’s as no one can speak for God.

---------------

It is a short list of Christians who openly change their minds but as I say, when they are running away, they do not look like they have won the argument.

It is unique to Christianity - in Islam it seems to be more accurately described as "waging war against God" to various degrees. It means acting against the wishes of God. It is more than crime or morality. As PP has pointed out: “Rom:3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” But this has been happening since the world began! Has anyone, ever, not sinned? I think not. In fact, it is impossible not to sin[1].

And if you know it is impossible, but demand it anyway, you have psychologically destabilised your subject who now lives in a tyranny of his own making, scared that he will do something that is “a sin” but not knowing what that might be.

It is the tool of the dictator.

Sin goes beyond crime, beyond morality: Pick up sticks on the Sabbath -> stoned to death and damned. Even Jesus saw this was ludicrous “Mark:2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:” but it had been a sin... then it’s not… so what was that all about?

Oh, and having slaves is not at all sinful, is it?

Sin is not only beyond crime, beyond morality, avoiding it trumps everything: “Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.”

Here we have the true fundamentalist: “I don’t give a shit for the law, I listen to God.” Brave words by psychopaths, but not for a democracy.

1Co:6:12: All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

But just a minute! What is this?“1st Peter 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;1st Peter 2:14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.1st Peter 2:15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:"

So where is sin? When you have to make a choice, do you obey your leaders or obey God?

So Sin is basically what those in charge of the Church say is sin, and that is basically not agreeing with what they have said is God’s Word.

If you wish examples, look to North Korea: They know about sin. The starving, dying inhabitants of the forced labour camps have sinned. Those who are tried and executed in a day have sinned.

And that is how Christians see the perfect world: an absolute theocracy where God’s Word is interpreted by the unelected few and death to those who resist.

Long live sin... They don't know what it is, it is not written down, there is no codex of laws but, By God, you will suffer if you sin.

Plus if you don't believe in sin, one might be inclined to go out and kill somebody.

Skep, You say, not believing in sin, one may go out and kill somebody. Then Astreja reminded me of jailed believers, and I thought of the Muslim men in Guantanamo prison. You know they consider themselves believers as sure as you do? Certainly many on different sides of this sin equation would strongly condemn Islamic extremists as have committed sins by killing others.

Now, over in the middle east, there are many in Islam who would praise to the almighty Allah what these Islamaic extremists have done, especially since they label the United States "The Great Satan."

Can you think of greater irony, Skep? What a tough spot for the world - everyone on opposite sides is absolutely convinced they are fighting for their God. Do you understand why, as atheists, doing things such as raising our children and gardening, you people on both sides scare the hell out of us, being so sure of yourselves and what you are willing to do?

^^^Agreed, shnozz. I like being an atheist. It means that I don't have any automatic, religiously built in reasons for wanting to kill others. It also means that I don't have to run around making yet more stuff up when I decide to kill, which would force me to explain why killing doesn't violate one of the commandments. As in, killing people in war.

And by removing the stigma of "sin" from all equations, I can decide whether or not to be a bad boy based on more grounded rationals. Yea, I'd like to have the guys car, and he left the keys in the ignition, but though it wouldn't bother non-existent gods, it would bug the heck out of him and probably land me in jail. So for rational reasons I can decide to go buy my own. If it was just another sin, which I was already automatically guilty of anyway, I would have a harder time trying to figure out why I shouldn't do it.

The job of sin was (and is) to justify the religion. Viable alternatives would ruin the whole thing.

I’m not sure that I completely agree. I am certainly not a biblical scholar. Nor am I as familiar with the Christian scriptures as many folks here on this forum. But I have to admit that I am a bit enamored of the books of Moses.

I mean, the books of Moses represent an astonishingly complex and sophisticated attempt to create a system of social norms. And to build a community. A nation. It is really pretty huge

Here we have a newly formed nation, which has developed currency, property and inheritance (along paternal lines), a justice system, and a bunch of social norms, or laws, kind of randomly grouped together, mixed in with a bunch of stories.

There is so much about the ways you are expected to treat your family members, your neighbors, your extended community, strangers, prisoners of war. These books are very specific about what you need to do if your livestock eat your neighbor’s crops, or what your obligations to travelers are, who the decision makers are, etc. And then it sets out all of the traditions and rituals and rites of passage that set this community, this nation, apart from everyone else. Furthermore, it makes it really clear who the enemies are, (those damned Canaanites), how to ensure positive population growth, (by not spilling that seed by yourself or with a man) and how to ensure that all women of child-bearing age are paired off with a man, in an era in which there was probably a shortage of men who died in wars.

I think that these books provide us with FASCINATING insight into this society.

The ancient Israelites spent a lot of time thinking about and engaging in sacrifices, apparently. And there were SO MANY things that they could do wrong. I mean, sacrificing something with blemishes, is a big no no, and you are not supposed to burn your sons or daughters as offerings, but if you do it really right, and burn the proper flesh, god really delights. But idols REALLY piss god off, and should be avoided at all costs.

Of course, most of the sins and abominations and wicked acts and whatnot are really silly taken out of the context of the society. And there are SO MANY OF THEM. I mean, there are rules about food and clothing and lots about sacrifice and quite a few about concubines, and all of that stuff is mixed in with “false witness” and honestly and humility and things that most of us might feel have relevance today.

But I do agree that this whole sin thing has gotten completely out of hand. Every generation of Christians and Muslims (and to a lesser degree Jews) has picked out a handful of these random laws, and persecuted or ostracized or downright assassinated folks who didn’t conform.

In the 17th century, lots of Christians were really, really concerned about witchcraft. Lots of folks, (mostly women) were killed in the name of fighting sin. Before that, it has been heresy that blasphemy that got Christians all riled up. The Spanish Inquisition developed torture techniques that are still studied today, in hopes of finding someone who heard someone say something they shouldn’t have said. Not that long ago, Christians in the US were fighting racial integration in schools and restaurants and bus station bathrooms, and especially arguing how inter-racial marriage was offensive to god. Today, a subset of the Christian community is freaking out about gay marriages and abortions.

I suspect that in a few generations, a subset of Christians and Muslims will be pissed off about the prevalence of robots in society, or even more pissed off about the fact that the first intelligent alien species we encounter is not willing to accept the Jesus story or the Mohammad story, and therefore should be conquered.

Trends come and go. Sin morphs into something else as time goes by. Which isn't to say that the whole concept of sin is not used to perpetuate a religion. I'm just not sure it was the original intent.

This sin as a non-reason when making moral judgments reminds me of a story. I may have told this here before, but people come and go so it bears retelling.

Years ago, before folks made such a justified fuss about child abuse, I was working on a project, and there was a little girl, about 8, who lived next door. I heard her get yelled at a lot by her parents, and others in the area said that it happened all the time. Also, she got spanked daily. For the slightest of infractions. Now I would report this to the proper authorities, but when this occurred, back around 1980, people weren't as bothered by such things. Regrettably.

Anyway, one day I saw her sitting behind a little shed on a hot summer day, eating a huge bag of frozen berries. I quietly walked over and asked her if she was afraid she might get in trouble for doing that. Her reply: "I get in trouble every day anyway, even when I don't do anything wrong. If I'm going to get spanked today, I might as well do what I want first."

That is the sin of sin. Making no distinctions, hovering over all with threats, while taking the morality out of everything and replacing it with arbitrary rulings. Nothing is accomplished, unless fear is your goal. And that's nothing to brag about.

And Quesi, I'm drawing a distinction between moral standards and sin. Commandments such as "Thou shalt not kill" are fine. I have no qualms about ancient societies trying to put things in perspective and organize themselves around standards, including crimes and even minor behavioral problems. My concern here is the heavy-handed sin stuff, where everyone is automatically guilty, and every sin is equally disdained. And where guilt is the intent, where it is a goal rather than a byproduct. Where sin is something that Christians want to build off of rather than stop. No matter how wonderful and helpful and perfect you are as a human being, you are still a sinner in the Christian world, by default. And to me that offers nothing to the world.

But they need it to survive.

I think there is a difference. If I'm being too simplistic or naive, or if I'm overlooking something, please tell me.

Right now, in 2013, it is a sin in Judaism to kill a steer for food without following kosher law.

Quote

This is how kosher meat is made. Secretly recorded inside a kosher slaughterhouse. The video shows a worker cutting cows' throats while the cows are still alive, in accordance with Jewish law, and the cows flailing on the ground afterwards.

This youtube video is not very good, and requires a password, don't watch if you are squeamish.

^^ What a tragic story. Thank you for sharing. Her assessment of the situation speaks volumes.

But here is the thing I don't get. I don't think ANY Christian or Muslim thinks that all sin is the same. I mean, until they get caught diddling the choir boys, at which point "we are all sinners."

But they KNOW. They know the difference between feeling a twinge of jealousy at someone else's good fortune, and raping the kid next door.

They KNOW that not all of their sins are equal.

Don't they?

Sure, humans can naturally tell the difference between bread stolen by a mother wanting to feed her child and murder. And there are all sorts of in-betweens. However, Christians tell us that all sin is equal in the eyes of their god. Believers are threatened with hell unless they repent, even if all they have to repent is being angry for three seconds when someone stepped on their toe. Christians know the difference. Christianity doesn't care. The guilt is the important part, not the crime.

Sin is also a bludgeon that Christians use against non-believers -- "We're saved and you're not, neener neener neener!"

Not even remotely true. It's a very sad thing when a person is not saved. Nothing to gloat about whatsoever.

This isn't a game. This is serious. Souls are at stake.

Plus if you don't believe in sin, one might be inclined to go out and kill somebody.

Yeah but it is comforting to know that you are saved isn't it. What a wonderful feeling it must be to know that you are saved and maybe even people you love and care about are also saved. It must be nice to be so privileged and special that YOU are saved. All you have to do is follow the rules and do what God tells you and you have a good chance of going to heaven.

This always irked me when I considered myself a Christian. I thought, why do I deserve to be saved and go to heaven (even if I do everything right in the exact way that God would want) and people as good or even better than me would not go to heaven just because they didn't believe or even know about Jesus? I didn't, no matter how good I was or could be.

My Christian God was an all loving god, an all knowing god and an all powerful god. My Christian God would allow no suffering after death and everyone (even Hitler or the worst human being anyone can think of) would go to heaven. Why would evil people go to heaven you might ask? Because an all-loving and all-knowing god would understand why they did evil and would love them despite the evil things they did. This Christian God does not exist in the Bible, Torrah or Koran.

Believing that anyone deserves to go to hell or needs to be saved is wishful thinking, with selfish desires. We look at Hitler and say "It is obvious he is evil and deserves to be punished for eternity". We dislike Hitler and want him to be punished. An all-loving god can't dislike Hitler and wouldn't want him to be punished.

This is why it's so easy to see that religion and god(s) is/are man-made. Only humans make rules. Only humans set up rules to exclude other humans. Only humans would make rules so that only some people are rewarded with heaven and others are punished with hell. A good God would have no such rules.

« Last Edit: December 17, 2013, 07:08:28 PM by SevenPatch »

Logged

"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Plus if you don't believe in sin, one might be inclined to go out and kill somebody.

So why are atheist's 5% of the general population and 0.5% of the prison population?

Pop, there I go again with a sharp fact bursting your soap bubble assertions.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Not even remotely true. It's a very sad thing when a person is not saved. Nothing to gloat about whatsoever.

This isn't a game. This is serious. Souls are at stake.

So here we have a situation where rational people have a to spend some of their time fretting over other rational people because all rational people are included on God's list of whose been bad (good isn't an option).

By believing this stuff, theists get trapped by a mindset that requires them to dwell on these things. It requires them to worry about others. Not about others and their sorted and sundry problems, but their ostensible sin issues. Each person, presumed guilty and immediately convicted at birth, has to go through a one sort of ritual or another to get the monkey off their back. And those that don't abide by certain unoptional rules are doomed.

But that's okay. Doom is a requirement. Some have to suffer being microwaved forever so that those that think they are escaping such a thing can feel palpable relief. And give thanks to the very god that created the mess in the first place. Of course, Christians don't look at it that way. For this to work, we all have to think it is our fault. Absolutely our fault. our fault that we made the mortal mistake of descending from the wrong (but only available) person. And we are dirt because of it.

Luckily, "he" loves us, and "he" will forgive us, if we can only manage to fit the right tab A into the right slot B. Which apparently means we have to pick a specific version of his one true word, adhere to it, go through the right motions and then wait around to die so we can get more, you know, relevant feedback. Because only then can one get confirmation that they picked right amongst the many choices.

At least in theory.

And all of this wears on people. Because "souls are at stake". And good humans who also think they are major sinners dwell on this stuff. They think their future is at stake if they don't do it right. And that everyone else's is too.

But only Christianity is at stake, and if it can't maintain the illusion of universal sin and related subjects, like heaven and hell, it is doomed. JC's little obstacle course, central to the whole motif, becomes a useless weekend getaway.

The fucked up thing about this is they sin whenever the hell the urge comes along,with no thought of penalty. They over-use the get out of hell Jesus card. They blame free-will for the fact they WANT to sin,and then claim Jesus has saved them from their actions. How about this if the action is wrong and it hurts you or someone you know DON'T do the action. Instead you DO the act and use your Jesus card,instead of just being a good person.

The simple thing would be to do the right thing and not sin,but hey when you got the get out of hell Jesus card SIN all you want without penalty. These Atheists could sin all they want to,they just have to buy into the system.

« Last Edit: December 17, 2013, 08:15:44 PM by 12 Monkeys »

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Ok. So everyone is a sinner. But you do recognize some hierarchy of sin. Don't you?

I mean, let's take Ariel Castro - they guy who kidnapped, imprisoned, raped and tortured three women for more than a decade. He was a Christian. Went to church every Sunday, while these women were chained up in his home

And then, let's take the bored housewife, who becomes arrogant at the PTA meeting.

I mean, do you recognize a difference here? Or is a sin a sin a sin, and we are all sinners, so it doesn't matter which sins we commit?

Doctrinally, Revelations says that only those who worship the beast, burn for the aeon of the aeons.

Quote

[9] And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,[10] The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:[11] And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Enoch says that some souls are slain, and those who eternally execrate are burned, but that's not particularly clear.

The problem is that Matthew's Jesus is in contradiction, and says we risk the fire, if we Raca our brother. Then Matthew says that we will be chastened for the aeon. 25:46.

Logged

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be bleedn obvious.

Quesi,they will just dismiss Castro as a make believe Christian,as for the bored soccer mom,they will say she is only human and made a mistake. She is forgiven because she loves Jesus,Castro is in hell because he wasn't really a "Christian" he was just pretending. The bible has no problem with rape or slavery,so how they dismiss Castro as a "non-Christian" is beyond me.

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Ok. So everyone is a sinner. But you do recognize some hierarchy of sin. Don't you?

You can actually construe it from the doctrine that there is a hierachy of sin, but there are contradictions.

Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Logged

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be bleedn obvious.

Ok. So everyone is a sinner. But you do recognize some hierarchy of sin. Don't you?

You can actually construe it from the doctrine that there is a hierachy of sin, but there are contradictions.

Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

so heaven has a class system? This means the lesser the sins committed the better your place in heaven,the worse the sin the lower your class? Think there is a heaven prison for murderers that accept Jesus?

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)